Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Disability And Abortion: The Hardest Choice CHANNEL 4

363 replies

Wouldloveanother · 29/08/2022 07:50

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11155443/DOMINIC-LAWSON-Doctors-stop-pushing-mothers-aborting-disabled-babies.html

I’m planning on watching this in the next few days, but I’m getting increasingly concerned about the amount of anti-choice activity going on under the guise of ‘disability equality’.

OP posts:
VestaTilley · 29/08/2022 22:42

I agree @SlagathaChristie

JacquelineCarlyle · 29/08/2022 23:00

I completely agree @whumpthereitis

GerronBuzanDoThaWomwok · 29/08/2022 23:42

The philosophical notion of personhood is inherently flawed, depending as it does upon a subjective choice of a particular philosophical approach. Biology is immutable, which is why individual human life and not "personhood" is what ought to be considered.

whumpthereitis · 29/08/2022 23:58

GerronBuzanDoThaWomwok · 29/08/2022 23:42

The philosophical notion of personhood is inherently flawed, depending as it does upon a subjective choice of a particular philosophical approach. Biology is immutable, which is why individual human life and not "personhood" is what ought to be considered.

Sure, and you can consider it to be of lesser concern when placed in direct opposition to someone else’s right to bodily autonomy (hell, you can’t even take from a corpse without consent, in order to save someone’s life). You can absolutely believe a fetus is alive and support abortion. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

LangClegsInSpace · 30/08/2022 00:14

GerronBuzanDoThaWomwok · 29/08/2022 23:42

The philosophical notion of personhood is inherently flawed, depending as it does upon a subjective choice of a particular philosophical approach. Biology is immutable, which is why individual human life and not "personhood" is what ought to be considered.

This is a discussion about the Abortion Act and various asssults upon it.

The legal concept of personhood is well established.

I don't care about your 'philodophical notions' I care about the law and women's rights under the law.

FarmerRefuted · 30/08/2022 00:37

And the reason we have law is to take away the emotional and philosophical discussions by setting out in black and white exactly what is permitted and what is not. Whether you agree with abortion or not, the law says it is permissable and the circumstances under which that applies.

Fifife · 30/08/2022 00:42

Unless you are rich and have unlimited means, supporting a severely disabled child can be full of difficulties. I've had parents crying because the child won't sleep and they keep going into their siblings room and turning the lights on. The entire family is at breaking point from severe sleep deprivation. Before we take women's rights away disability services need to be better funded, better respite which might then effect the abortion rates.

I'm well trained in disability and positive behaviour support and I personally wouldn't choose to have a severely disabled child because I see the battles these parents fight everyday for a little bit of support. Putting more children into care won't effect the outcome they will spend most of their lives in institutions from very early on.

LangClegsInSpace · 30/08/2022 00:45

Exactly @FarmerRefuted .

GerronBuzanDoThaWomwok · 30/08/2022 01:01

I haven't introduced any philosophical "notions", I was responding to an earlier comment which seemed to lend more weight to a vague concept of personhood, rather than the reality of an individual, human life (in this case, the unborn baby).

LangClegsInSpace · 30/08/2022 01:12

Fifife · 30/08/2022 00:42

Unless you are rich and have unlimited means, supporting a severely disabled child can be full of difficulties. I've had parents crying because the child won't sleep and they keep going into their siblings room and turning the lights on. The entire family is at breaking point from severe sleep deprivation. Before we take women's rights away disability services need to be better funded, better respite which might then effect the abortion rates.

I'm well trained in disability and positive behaviour support and I personally wouldn't choose to have a severely disabled child because I see the battles these parents fight everyday for a little bit of support. Putting more children into care won't effect the outcome they will spend most of their lives in institutions from very early on.

This too. As @OhmygodDont said,

Our care system really is that bad yes

And it's getting worse.

This group of campaigners who are attempting to restrict women's abortion rights in the name of disability rights don't seem to have any campaigns around improving the care system or the benefit system.

Those are the things that send the biggest message that disabled people's lives are worth less. The care system and the benefit system are that bad because society really does not give a shit about disabled people or their carers.

Those are the things that would lead me to consider ending a pregnancy on the grounds of disability. I would not continue with a pregnancy of a disabled foetus unless I was sure that they and I had access to the necesary care and support.

Even then I would worry tremendously about what would happen to them after I died.

LangClegsInSpace · 30/08/2022 01:20

GerronBuzanDoThaWomwok · 30/08/2022 01:01

I haven't introduced any philosophical "notions", I was responding to an earlier comment which seemed to lend more weight to a vague concept of personhood, rather than the reality of an individual, human life (in this case, the unborn baby).

Yes you did, you said 'The philosophical notion of personhood is inherently flawed'

Personhood is a legal concept and it's not at all vague.

Foetuses are human and they are alive but they do not have legal personhood, they do not have human rights, until they are born.

GerronBuzanDoThaWomwok · 30/08/2022 01:32

FarmerRefuted · 29/08/2022 19:12

Try again...

Personhood is not conferring until birth, a fetus is not a person until then which is why abortion is not murder in the eyes of the law and even causing someone to lose a pregnancy, for example due to violence such as happened with Beth Newman and Alison Bolton, they would face charges of grievous bodily harm to the woman but would not be charged with murder of the unborn child.

This is the introduction of personhood into the discussion

GerronBuzanDoThaWomwok · 30/08/2022 01:46

LangClegsInSpace · 30/08/2022 01:20

Yes you did, you said 'The philosophical notion of personhood is inherently flawed'

Personhood is a legal concept and it's not at all vague.

Foetuses are human and they are alive but they do not have legal personhood, they do not have human rights, until they are born.

No, unborn babies are protected under the Infant Life(Preservation) Act and the Offences Against the Person Act, see the CPS briefing (06 Jan 2022) re. Asa Davison's life sentence for killing his unborn child
www.cps.gov.uk/wessex/news/updated-sentence-violent-abuser-guilty-causing-death-unborn-baby#:~:text=Update%3A%20Asa%20Davison,course%20of%20justice.

LangClegsInSpace · 30/08/2022 02:19

GerronBuzanDoThaWomwok · 30/08/2022 01:32

This is the introduction of personhood into the discussion

@FarmerRefuted is correct.

LangClegsInSpace · 30/08/2022 02:30

GerronBuzanDoThaWomwok · 30/08/2022 01:46

No, unborn babies are protected under the Infant Life(Preservation) Act and the Offences Against the Person Act, see the CPS briefing (06 Jan 2022) re. Asa Davison's life sentence for killing his unborn child
www.cps.gov.uk/wessex/news/updated-sentence-violent-abuser-guilty-causing-death-unborn-baby#:~:text=Update%3A%20Asa%20Davison,course%20of%20justice.

What Davidson did was disgusting. He was found guilty of GBH and ABH against his ex-partner. He was also found guilty of child destruction because he deliberately caused his ex-partner to lose her pregnancy.

Child destruction does not apply to born infants. If foetuses had personhood and human rights, the charge would not have been child destruction, it would have been murder.

Jellycatspyjamas · 30/08/2022 03:32

Right now there are 80,000 children in care, 45,000 foster homes, and only 3,500 adoptions a year.

This statistic keeps being mentioned however only a very small percentage of those 80,000 children would be eligible for adoption. When a child is taken into care the plan is always to seek a safe return to their family of birth, if that proves impossible the child is then placed on a permanent basis either in long term foster care, or freed for adoption. Over 70% of that 80,000 will be returned home within a year, only around 5% will be eligible for adoption.

Yes there would be challenges in the system if disabled babies were born and then placed in care because we make pretty shitty corporate parents. There would need to be huge societal shift which ensured appropriate resources and support for children in care, which is never going to happen.

In terms of healthy babies, which was the suggested alternative to abortion for folk who favour abortion at any point for any reason, the likelihood is we would see an increase in potential adopters hoping to have a healthy baby placed from birth. The difficulty there is that removal itself is traumatic at infancy so they still could find themselves caring for a child impacted by their adoption without being prepared for this because they expected a perfectly healthy “relinquished” baby.

Very often one of the things that put people off adoption is the idea that a) they’d never be able to adopt an infant and b) any child freed for adoption has experienced trauma/significant harm with all that goes with it. Placing a healthy baby in lieu of late term abortion would fundamentally change the adoption landscape, and not necessarily in a good way.

MsPincher · 30/08/2022 03:41

SlagathaChristie · 29/08/2022 08:30

I really hate to stray from the main topic, but how on earth does anybody actually sit there and say they want abortion to be given up to full term, no medical reason needed?! Seriously, do you ever think about what that would entail? How would you physically kill a baby that would be born happily and healthily at that point? Leave it on a hillside? Wring its neck?

I can't fathom how a baby is the most wonderful, important, innocent creature on one side of his/her mother's vagina, but absolutely fine to kill on the other side. How far into labour or birth would you say it's OK to kill it?

I'm still in favour of some abortion being allowed, but the idea of killing a 39 week gestated baby is ridiculous.

As much as anyone talks about rights, we should talk about responsibility and duty too. And that's where the serious and difficult ethical questions come in with disability and abortion, because as pp have said, it's a hell of a responsibility to cope with.

Full term abortions are very rare and are generally due to severe medical issues with foetus or mother. The choice should absolutely be there for women at all stages or else you end up with womens life and health compromised.

WiddlinDiddlin · 30/08/2022 04:20

There are some very naive views in this thread, about disability, about what that entails for a parent or a child.

When someone objects to 'full term' abortion because disabled children have a right to life too..

They're thinking about those neat, tidy, attractive disabilities, where a child can talk and laugh and play.. but may use a wheelchair or crutches or perhaps have a missing limb or two.

They're thinking about that child being raised by two loving parents in a comfortably well off home, with all the benefits they need to make life easier laid on at the drop of a hat, with access to all the care, education, equipment they need..

We're not talking about disabilities like that. We are not discussing the disability poster children who grow up to be independent, work in a nice office somewhere, perhaps become actors or actresses and feature on BBC or Channel 4 shows..

We're also not, when it comes to full term abortion, talking about those children who may not out live childhood, who will be non-verbal, non-communicative, have no mobility, have no bodily control whatsoever, whose parents will spend their entire lives guessing what they want, think, need, never knowing if their child is happy or trapped in a locked in hell.

We are talking about babies who will be born, screaming in agony (or unable to do so but still in agony) for whom every breath will be a fight. Babies whose organs are on the outside not the inside, or who developed without all the necessary organs or born already in severe organ failure, who are unable to survive outside the womb for very long, yet long enough to suffer and no we can't euthanise them like we would any other animal and we no longer put them in a side room to die quietly out of the way...

We're talking about babies for whom birth will be a brief, but intense hell, whose birth will give the mother PTSD, life long grief and guilt (because why couldn't THEIR body produce a normal, healthy baby)...

I ask you, who would wish a system that forces those babies to be born, and those babies and their parents to suffer that?

Being able to abort a fetus later than normal because a severe disability has shown up won't mean the world ends up with NO disabled people, because in reality very very few disabilities show up in scans and tests, compared to the number of causes of disability in living people!

I firmly believe the only reason anyone needs to have an abortion is 'I want an abortion'.

No child deserves to be born to someone who does not want that child.

That has to go double for a disabled child - do you WANT parents who do not want to BE parents, raising any child, let alone one with disabilities?

Can you please imagine what life is like as a child with one of any number of disabilities - repeated surgeries, repeated examinations, being encouraged to be 'good' every time you need to 'agree' to allow a doctor to do something painful, invasive or traumatic.

All those times you sit and have a conversation with your healthy small child about pants rules and what people can and can't do and you can say no to things you don't like, no one is allowed to hurt you...

Disabled children are frequenty co-erced to say yes to things that in any other context, children cannot consent to.

They feel they have to hide how scared they are, hide how much stuff hurts, agree to things they want to scream NO to, because to do otherwise is to let down the grown ups who are helping, the grown ups who care, the grown ups who are, even to a very small child, obviously scared and running themselves ragged trying to hold shit together.

Now imagine that without the support of loving parents - imagine that in a care setting where to not be 'good' will result in much worse than upset stressed out parents.

Branleuse · 30/08/2022 09:09

Saucery · 29/08/2022 13:25

Are people ok with testing being rolled out for deafness, visual impairment, autism, growth anomalies? Because if it’s ok to abort due to Down Syndrome then surely it’s ok to eradicate those conditions too? If not, why not?
Either every foetus has the right to be carried to term or none have that right, is where I’m coming from.
I’m uneasy about the hijacking of the Don’t Screen Us Out campaign by pro lifers, but equally uneasy about the prevalent attitude that DS is something every woman would like to eradicate from society. That as soon as that test result comes through, you’d need to get on the abortion track asap.

Wtf. How do you expect they will test for visual and hearing impairments in the womb, let alone neurodiversity. ?
Yes im fine with people aborting pregnancies for those reasons, as im in favour of people being able to access safe abortions even if theyve just changed their mind. I see no good reason for forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies. These are foetuses. They arent aware whats going on.
Theres enough people in the world that it seems mad to force people to have babies they dont even want and dont think they can care for.

YellowRoad · 30/08/2022 09:36

Your dislike of late termination doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be an option for other women.

Yes it does? It's like saying "your dislike of killing people doesn't mean that shouldn't be an option for others".

FarmerRefuted · 30/08/2022 09:51

YellowRoad · 30/08/2022 09:36

Your dislike of late termination doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be an option for other women.

Yes it does? It's like saying "your dislike of killing people doesn't mean that shouldn't be an option for others".

Killing people is murder and against the law.

Abortion is not murder and is permitted under law.

See the difference?

Personally I have a dislike of lip fillers and unnaturally large breast implants so I wouldn't have either one done but I wouldn't stop someone else from choosing to get them because, not only is it legal to have these procedures, it is entirely up them what they do with their body.

whumpthereitis · 30/08/2022 09:53

YellowRoad · 30/08/2022 09:36

Your dislike of late termination doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be an option for other women.

Yes it does? It's like saying "your dislike of killing people doesn't mean that shouldn't be an option for others".

And if I was queen of the world you’d be a bit fucked if you were a fan of camping and decaf coffee.

Why? What business is it of yours what another woman decides to do in regards to her own body and pregnancy?

PerfectlyPreservedQuagaarWarrior · 30/08/2022 10:16

The number of disabled children in the care system increases. Some of these children will be too severely disabled to be fostered let alone adopted as they will never leave hospital or a professional care setting. There are not enough potential adopters to take on the current children in care never mind increasing the numbers and many of those potential adopters will be in the same position as rhe birth parents - unable to meet the needs of a disabled child.

Yep. And we all know full well what happens when children are brought into the world with nobody who actually is able and wants to care for them, and when there's no prospect of the adoption or foster care systems being able to accommodate them all. It isn't nice.

We would be actively choosing to recreate this, notwithstanding that the person who said there'd be more abortions at 23 weeks if later abortion was banned altogether was correct. It's a fucking moronic idea.

babyjellyfish · 30/08/2022 10:33

I once volunteered in an orphanage in a country where abortion is banned. Many of the babies were adopted by local families, and I hope with all my heart that most of them went on to have happy childhoods. There was one baby who we realised very early on was blind. I didn't have much hope for her.

There was also, in the baby room for 0-2 year olds, a profoundly disabled boy of about 12, who lay on a bed all day waiting to be fed and have his nappy changed.

Whilst I imagine that a child like him would have better care in the UK, that is the reality for disabled children whose parents can't or don't want to care for them.

It's hard enough finding suitable adoptive parents for healthy children who have suffered trauma, or children with foetal alcohol syndrome. Very disabled children have next to no chance.

Fifife · 30/08/2022 10:54

YellowRoad · 30/08/2022 09:36

Your dislike of late termination doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be an option for other women.

Yes it does? It's like saying "your dislike of killing people doesn't mean that shouldn't be an option for others".

Campaign for better disability services which might prompt more people to continue pregnancies. A lot of people abort because there's a lack of services and support in place. There's not enough parents for children needing adopting as it is. If they outlaw abortion for disabled foetuses there will be a rise in institutions.